How very sad for you...this is not my personal experience.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are there Catholics and Orthodox that are practicing and saved?
- Thread starter Thinkingstuff
- Start date
- Status
How very sad for you...this is not my personal experience.
annsni, I have 3 kids...a 6, 3 and 4 (Irish Twins), is it glorifying God to get down to their level and tell them to cut the crap in Church, Wal-Mart or where ever the situation deems? Actually, it is Glorifying God...
DHK made an unfounded statement that Christians that die are no longer a part of the Church or the Body of Christ, which is essentially the same thing. He then claimed such as a "Baptist Doctrine". Is this what your Baptist Church teaches? Mine didn't and I was a Baptist for 32 years.
Why can't DHK simply back up these claims? Why instead of backing up his theology, not with his personal thoughts, but with actual Baptist Doctrine that's back up with Holy Scripture...Why should we be held to any different standard than he...is it because he's a Baptist on a Baptist Board a Mod and free to make it up as he goes? Is it because Protestantism affords him the right to be his own infallible pope and to make theological pronouncements on the fly? That's how cults get started and if he's preaching this heresy in his Church, then yes, it is my duty to call it what it is and yours to do the same.
You seriously don't know the answer to this? You're a Baptist right? Have you ever been Soul Winning or "door knocking"? Any Baptist worth his salt will tell you when a person dies it's either heaven or hell...Its obvious...
In XC
-
Agnus,
First, it is not Baptist doctrine that one ceases to be a part of the church when one dies, unless one believes in local church only doctrine (which most Baptists would probably disavow anyway).
However, "cut the crap" is way out of line. It should never have been said, and hopefully never will be again. You can find better ways to communicate your questions and your disagreement. Hopefully in the future you will find a more gracious way to communicate your point.
First, it is not Baptist doctrine that one ceases to be a part of the church when one dies, unless one believes in local church only doctrine (which most Baptists would probably disavow anyway).
However, "cut the crap" is way out of line. It should never have been said, and hopefully never will be again. You can find better ways to communicate your questions and your disagreement. Hopefully in the future you will find a more gracious way to communicate your point.
"Cut the crap" is glorifying to God? And how would that be? "Crap" is a coarse slang word - not a word I would use before my children or anyone that I wanted to respect. I'm sorry that you're teaching your children to use it.
I don't think DHK said that they are no longer the body of Christ - but he did say that they are no longer part of the church. Look up "church" in Biblegateway and tell me a verse that says that the term "church" is to be applied to all believers who ever lived or died.
Since the idea of all believers who have died being part of the church isn't remotely in the Scriptures, it is difficult to give Scripture to refute it. That would be like saying "Prove that we are to have pews in church" It can't be done because the concept is not even in Scripture.
I'm a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ who is saved by grace. I just happen to attend a Baptist church. No - I haven't been "soul winning" or "door knocking". We don't do that here and I don't think it's an effective way to bring the Lord to others. I do not agree with getting people to pray a prayer and put another mark in the wall so I do not do these two practices.
Oh - and any believer who's truly a believer will tell you when a person dies it's either heaven or hell because that's what Scripture says. To say we have another chance after death is to ignore the clear teachings of Scripture.
How would you explain John, an "apostle" himself, watching "himself" sitting around the throne of God?
I believe this part of Revelation is a future "vision" of things to come.
:jesus:
Hmmm!
Good question! :thumbs: :applause:
Incidentally, where does it even say that John is one of these 12 Apostles of the Lamb that is in view, here?
These particular "12" are not identified, as to who they are, to my knowledge, and since at least 24 individuals can be identified Scripturally as "apostle" [along with unnamed others who may have this gift (I Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11)], including the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, how do we know "which" of these 24 (or more) these 12 actually are? I do not see any Scripture that ever says where the spiritual gift of Apostle ceased, anytime. Thus, I believe this may well be a valid spiritual gift, even today. (Although please do not think for one second that I believe that most of the so-called, self-styled, and self-proclaimed 'apostles' one may be able to find today, are actually possessing of this 'supposed' gift, as they might claim.)
Several others with the designation of "apostle" are mentioned more times in Scripture, than are some of Jesus' initial 12, I believe you will find, most notably obviously Paul, and including Barnabas, James the Just, and Timothy among them. It is nothing but speculation to go beyond Scripture, IMO, in attempting to definitely identify these 12.
Ed
Outstanding, so how is this handled by the BB Admin, when one of their own is pushing a doctrine that's foreign to Church teaching...in this case Baptist teaching...although I understand there's many different types of Baptist. I would hope it wouldn't take an Orthodox Christian to correct his doctrine.
Certainly I should've chosen my words a little more carefully...it's mine and I will venture to say many other members here who would deem DHK's participating and responses a bit offending at times.
I asked DHK a simple question, one that you and annsni didn't seem to have a problem comprehending and answering...instead DHK likes to play the game of turning it on you and ridiculing your beliefs and comparing your faith to some off the wall religion, without addressing the question.
It's remarks as such of his which draws the responses and yes, I should've never fell to his level and for that I'll apologize and seek forgivness. I should be building DHK up spiritually and showing him his errors in a loving Christian manner...I'll keep that in mind next time...
In XC
-
And if you ask me when I was in Catholicism I would have opined the same, there are none so blind than those who refuse to see and that was me at that point. The RCC does not teach Salvation by Faith in Christ alone, Trent calls people who believe that accursed, but by what we do. In RCC one must go to Mass, Confession and in Christianity these works are not needed or necessary.
Indeed Salvation is not by works lest anyone should boast, nothing can save us. Not Mass, not praying to Mary hoping one gets taken to Heaven and misses purgatory. None of this stuff will save us, only the shed blood of Christ and faith in Him alone will.
People are entitled to be wrong. Moderators are not doctrine police. They moderate behavior and decorum. You are certainly not here because of doctrinal fidelity. You are, however, expected to maintain proper decorum.
If DHK were exhibiting bad behavior, he would be talked to be other mods and admins. Espousing a wrong doctrinal position on something is something he has to defend himself.
Baptists believe in soul liberty; something that the RCC and Orhodox hate. We do not have a Catechism which we adhere to and are spoonfed by our leaders that ties our hands when we study the Bible.
FYI, there are many Baptists on this board that believe just the way I do, as I explained to you. There are others (perhaps the majority) that agree with Larry. I can adequately defend my position through Scripture, as I am sure Larry thinks he also can. It is a matter of soul liberty--the right to agree to disagree on a doctrine that is not essential to our fellowship as believers in Christ or even as Baptist brethren.
Whether or not "church" is always used in a local sense (my view); or whether it is used in a universal sense (The Church), doesn't really matter concerning our fellowship, or even our doctrine. Your doctrine is refuted either way, and is heretical when held up to Word of God. When a believer dies he is dead. His body is buried. His spirit goes to heaven, and he is no longer a part of this church (local or otherwise), as both are defined as a body of believers on this earth, whether locally or collectively. Those in heaven have nothing to do with it. They are dead. To pray to the dead is condemned. It is necromancy. Do you pray to the thief on the cross? Why or why not? The Governor General of Quebec takes time to pray to her grand-mother and other deceased relatives. She is a Spiritist, deeply involved in the Occult. Is that what you do? It sounds like it. The Occult; Shintoism? Praying to the dead. All these are condemned in the Bible, as is praying to the dead, which is idolatry.
You call them spirits alive in heaven. Maybe so. But they are people who have died, and are considered dead by the average person. You are simply playing a game of semantics to justify an ungodly and anti-Biblical doctrine.
I never ridiculed Ann's or Larry's beliefs. I stated my own. Their beliefs happen to differ from mine. It is called soul liberty. Read the threads on Calvinism/Arminianism or Dispensationalism/Covenantalism, etc. We have differences in doctrine. It isn't bad.
I speak the truth. I point out errror. It offends you. The truth often offends.
I am not sorry for that.
Incidentally, where does it even say that John is one of these 12 Apostles of the Lamb that is in view, here?
These particular "12" are not identified, as to who they are, to my knowledge, and since at least 24 individuals can be identified Scripturally as "apostle" [along with unnamed others who may have this gift (I Cor. 12:28,29; Eph. 4:11)], including the Lord Jesus Christ, Himself, how do we know "which" of these 24 (or more) these 12 actually are? I do not see any Scripture that ever says where the spiritual gift of Apostle ceased, anytime. Thus, I believe this may well be a valid spiritual gift, even today. (Although please do not think for one second that I believe that most of the so-called, self-styled, and self-proclaimed 'apostles' one may be able to find today, are actually possessing of this 'supposed' gift, as they might claim.)
Several others with the designation of "apostle" are mentioned more times in Scripture, than are some of Jesus' initial 12, I believe you will find, most notably obviously Paul, and including Barnabas, James the Just, and Timothy among them. It is nothing but speculation to go beyond Scripture, IMO, in attempting to definitely identify these 12.
Ed
Good input for thought :thumbsup:
We’ll DHK, I was a Orthodox Catechumen for a year and have been an practicing Orthodox since this past Pentecost. In regard to “Soul Liberty”, I haven’t witnessed any of my “liberties” taken from me…In comparison to the Catholic Church, I can miss a Liturgy, by being lazy and not be considered a “mortal sin”, and we recognize no “mortal” or “venal” sins. I can choose not to fast on a Wednesday or Friday and not be banned from the Eucharist, which the Catholics don’t even do any more (fasting that is...**its not like it used to be, say pre-Vatican 2**). In regard to contraception, the Orthodox doesn’t have a stricted pronounced stand, although it is frowned upon especially the type that aborts, but as far as other methods, it’s really between the married adults and their pastor.
So DHK, you may know a little about Catholicism and so do I through my time in RCIA, but your knowledge of Orthodoxy is very remedial at best. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are very two different animals. Just b/c a Freewill Baptist believes something, doesn’t mean I would assume you do to, b/c you call yourself a Baptist too.
Please DHK, its these little snide remarks that draw the responses you get. Our “leaders” don’t “spoon feed” us anymore that my little infallible pope as a pastor while I was a Baptist…only difference is that we have 2,000 years of authentic Christian teaching to back up what we are “spoon feed”.
You think disagreements only happen in Baptist circles? LOL…The Orthodox Church is just as bad, only our disagreements aren’t really tied to doctrine.
Don’t try to minimize this difference DHK and smoke screen it…this is a major difference in doctrine with Baptist! As a Baptist, we held a Wednesday night bible study in regard to this difference, and yes, it is a big deal! But hey…your Protestant…just continue to protest each other, you guys will straighten it out one day.
What a pompous remark, but expected…DHK has the truth Pastor Larry.., DHK is the resident Pope and I guess you speak “from the seat” huh? The only thing that offends is you playing off that only you know the truth…
In XC
-
Last edited by a moderator:
This part of your post shows your ignorance in what soul liberty is. You need to study more about this doctrine before trying to comment on it. Missing church on Sunday has nothing to do with soul liberty; it reflects on my faithfulness. Choosing whether to fast or not to fast is a personal preference, not a doctrine. You really have no idea what soul liberty is, do you?
I gave you a good example. It was demonstrated right here on the board. Pastor Larry has a different doctrinal view about the universal church/local church than I do. He is entitled to his view, and I mine. It is a matter of soul liberty. Your Catechism would not allow that freedom of disagreement. In fact your religion allows no disagreement in doctrine whatsoever. To have a Catholic discussion board to debate doctrine just for Catholics would not make sense. There would be nothing to debate. It is all written in stone--or at least by the Magesterium. There is no room for debate.
There are some that think that Mary should be a part of the Trinity, but do you really think that is going to happen. I think that it is a mathematical impossibility, but with some Catholics you never know.
Is this soul liberty among Catholics? Or is this type of discussion quickly put to silence by the authorities as soon as it is made public? There is no soul liberty, room for doctrinal difference, among either Orthodox or RCC.
They are close enough for me to prove my point. My point was proven already by your woeful ignorance of soul liberty.
A free-will Baptist and myself will believe the same basic distinctives that make us Baptists. Otherwise why would we carry the name?
I know by past posts that you had a bad experience in a Baptist Church, which is unfortunate. Don't judge every church by the one that you were in. It is also unfortunate, but true, that in some Baptist churches, the congregations are spoon-fed by their pastors; the congregations do not do any study on their own; they only show up on Sundays; they simply believe what the pastor says and that is it. And that is not the type of Christianity that I espouse, not the type of Baptist church that I go to.
But it is typically Catholic in nature and also Orthodox, in the sense that a person goes to church; must accept whatever is taught them, has no choice about it, cannot disagree in doctrine, must adhere in every point to the Catechism. Most RCC don't even know what the Catechism teaches much less if they agree with it or not.
To boast that you have had 2000 years of authentic teaching through the Orthodox Church is simply an arrogant unsubstantiated claim that can never be proven.
I know you can't disagree in doctrine. You are not permitted to. So you disagree in the color of the carpet instead.
What you try to make a big deal is not a big deal.
A man's system of theology is not a big deal. After all they are simply a system of theology made by a man to make it easier to comprehend the Bible: hence Calvinism and Arminianism; or Covenantalism and Dispensationalism. There is no big deal. I have sweet fellowship with both. But I cannot have that same fellowship with Catholics for they are not saved, and know not the doctrine of Christ.
When I say that Larry and I can disagree with each other and still fellowship and be brothers in Christ, you call that a pompous remark. I think rather that you have made a very arrogant remark.
Alive in Christ
New Member
DHK said...
Agnus Dei then said...
If he is sharing the truth of the scripture it isnt pompous in the least.
We have no "Pope." We have no "Papa" (Holy Father Pope) who takes the place of the true "Father" of all christians...Almighty God Himself.
The office or the Pope is blasphemous and extreme wickedness, as is the so called "Teaching Magesterium" of the Catholic Church. As is the blasphemous wickedness of the Catholics and Orthodox engaging in Goddess worship directed to the Goddess of choice...the counterfiet "Mary" of the CC and Orthodox.
We believe that the SCRIPTURES ALONE have the truth...not us.
Those are two of the most important truths to cling to, and so...of course...cults like the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox MUST deny those truths. They have no choice. They MUST teach falsehood regarding those things, because if they dont keep their victims in error they will eventually see the truth regarding those issues and the whole house of cards will eventually come crashing down.
Agnus Dei then said...
If he is sharing the truth of the scripture it isnt pompous in the least.
We have no "Pope." We have no "Papa" (Holy Father Pope) who takes the place of the true "Father" of all christians...Almighty God Himself.
The office or the Pope is blasphemous and extreme wickedness, as is the so called "Teaching Magesterium" of the Catholic Church. As is the blasphemous wickedness of the Catholics and Orthodox engaging in Goddess worship directed to the Goddess of choice...the counterfiet "Mary" of the CC and Orthodox.
We believe that the SCRIPTURES ALONE have the truth...not us.
Those are two of the most important truths to cling to, and so...of course...cults like the Jehovahs Wittnesses, Mormons, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox MUST deny those truths. They have no choice. They MUST teach falsehood regarding those things, because if they dont keep their victims in error they will eventually see the truth regarding those issues and the whole house of cards will eventually come crashing down.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, of course I don't mind you reading them, but I want to discuss these two specific chapters because they answer many of your misconceptions better than the other writings.
No, it isn't a process. That's why it says "hath perfected those whom He hath sanctified".
What about it?
Being justified doesn't mean you don't sin. It means that you no longer serve sin.
I don't really understand what these two have to do with the subject.
Now, did you read Romans cc 5-7?
Last edited by a moderator:
Not actually. It means that you have been declared to be righteous.
True, but in the context of the statement I was responding to, it means that you no longer serve sin.
If you really want to quibble over that, OK, but I trust that everyone else is smart enough to understand what I was saying.
Thanks for saying I am not smart. But leaving your personal comments aside, justification in theology and Scripture does not mean that you no longer serve sin. It means that God has declared you to be righteous.
The context, so far as I can tell from page 5, was a citation of Heb 10:27-28 which doesn't even deal with justification. Thinkingstuff asked then how you dealt with the problem of justification, but didn't define what the problem was.
In his comments, he seems to have the Catholic idea that justification is the result of no longer sinning (infused righteousness where we are justified as a result of being made righteous). I am not sure, since it is hard to tell from that little quote.
But, the reason I commented was because this is a key issue since one of the main differences between Biblical Christianity and Catholicism is the issue of justification. It is no small matter to misdefine it, no matter what the context. So yes, when it comes to justification, defining it properly is not a "quibble." It is at the heart of the biblical gospel.
Justification, in theology and Scripture, is always God declaring man to be righteous.
- Status